would you like some science in your pop sci?
Here's to hoping that the Discovery Channel does right by Phil Plait's show...
It's probably a pretty safe assumption that if you read this blog, you're well aware that Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer, will have a show on the Discovery Channel sometime this fall. Bad Universe is largely based on his book Death From The Skies, (I know, he wrote a book?) and after taking a look at the preview, I'm going to agree with the assessment that it looks like the child of Brian Cox and the Mythbusters. Of course this is great news for Phil and I certainly wish him all the best with his show. Having had a chance to chat with him some time ago, I can confirm that his enthusiastic delivery on TV and in presentations is a natural talent, and I've no doubt that he'll be a great host. However, my positive thoughts about Phil's writing and lecturing aside, I have to echo a question I've been hearing from quite a few fellow skeptics: how much science will this show have?
Remember the first few seasons of Mythbusters, when Adam and Jamie would give us detailed plans of their machines and scientific explanations of why the myths they were testing failed? When explosions weren't the requirement for an episode's end, but in which we got to see the messy and exploratory nature of planning an experiment and seeing it through no matter what? We don't see much of that anymore, do we now? Instead, a cheeky sign reading "warning! science content!" serves to introduce most facts, figures, and historical notes, often treated as a break before another big boom. Don't get me wrong, it's still a very fun show. But a little bit more science wouldn't exactly kill the ratings. And even that's pretty scientific compared to most of what you're going to see on the Discovery lineup. We've got loggers, truckers, crab fishermen, and Mike Rowe's constant misadventures in the world of careers that take you way outside the office cubicle. So, um, where's the whole science part if you pardon me for asking? We get it once in a long while with a Walking With Dinosaurs rerun, or another BBC show in the same route, often "edited for American audiences" to use the polite term.
It's really a cultural issue. Rather than fight with the new craze of creating celebrities who have no discernable talents other than making themselves look like train wrecks for the paparazzi, or just being attractive, or loud, obnoxious pundits and politicians with a searing hatred of actual experts in any field by trying to create an entirely new brand of science show that merges entertainment with education, like NatGeo has been trying to do with it's Naked Science, Explorer, Known Universe, and Taboo, Discovery decided to go into reality TV. For several seasons they were fueled by nothing but shows about building custom motorcycles and cars, or the various spin-offs from these projects. Even now, after relegating them to TLC and rebranding that network, it still seems that what propels Discovery are just different reality shows. So where's the actual discovery? And how much scientific content imparted by Phil (who certainly has all the skills and credentials to impart quite a bit of it), will survive the editors and producers through which it'll have to pass before it hits our TVs? We need good science on TV and I'm hoping that Discovery starts bringing in more science than flash, explosions and various new cavities and messes for Mike Rowe to explore and clean up, respectively…
